What About Commonality?

August 2, 2012 By

Diversity, diversity, diversity! Some people, political types in particular, are trying to make “diversity” our defining characteristic. Has anyone thought of approaching the topic from the point of “commonality”, a bonding point of view, rather than “diversity”, a dividing point of view? Using the term “diversity” appears to me to mask a hidden and potentially sinister agenda to divide and control us. The parties pursuing this line seem more interested in playing the “blame game” and law suits by using “diversity” to categorize color group rather than individual capability.

We are all unique because DNA has billions of variations which make us so, but our opportunities are not. Humans share only a few dozen needs and desires, at best, but we have a history describing how others have solved similar problems. However, today’s use of the term “diversity” tends to make some feel like victims who only use history as an excuse.

Positive self-worth is an important attribute to every person, but it comes from assuming responsibility for tasks and seeing them completed successfully. Without responsibility, we drift in a sea of self-doubt, but many are using “diversity” as a way to avert this responsibility.

“Sensitivity training” is a negative method assuming certain color groups must have special treatments for special needs. Bull! We are all special and should be treated accordingly. Special treat of sensitive groups simply allows them excuses and the escape from responsibility. The basics of Management 101 states – “don’t give responsibility without authority, or authority without responsibility.” That’s the training needed in place of “sensitivity”.

The United States thrives on individuality which has been the sparkplug of our society. When we meld this individuality with teamwork, as in companies and corporations, we have a powerful engine. Combining individual initiative and other talents with organizational management has led us to become a world leader.